SO WHEN IT CAME TIME to DO a FOLLOW-UP FILM (BASED on a LESS-BEST-SELLING NOVEL) SOME of US HOPED AT LEAST SOME of the FOLKS RESPONSIBLE for the FIRST FIASCO WOULDN'T BE ASKED BACK. BUT DESPITE THEIR HAVING MADE a MOVIE ALMOST NOBODY LIKED, the NAMES ASSOCIATED with DA VINCI ARE ALL MAJOR HOLLYWQOOD PLAYERS -- the TYPES STUDIOS ARE TERRIFIED of EVER SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT...

SO NOW WE HAVE the SECOND ONE...and a SECOND CHANCE to SEE HOW NOT to MAKE a THRILLING MOVIE from a PAGE-TURNER of a NOVEL...

WHILE IT WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED to SUCK AS BAD AS DA VINCI, ANGELS & DEMONS, by REWARDING DA VINCI's MAKERS for RUINING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONE of the BEST MOVIE THRILLERS EVER, AT LEAST DESERVES SOME MENTION in 2009's PASSING RAZZIE® PARADE.

AND WHO NOSE, IT COULD BE a FRONT-RUNNER for OUR 2009 WORST PREQUEL OR SEQUEL AWARD...

I never thought this movie would have a spot here. But then again, it's hard to make a "thriller" out of a book that's mostly just a bunch of people standing around talking about all of the Church's dirty little secrets (which are probably true).

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

I think the plot is supposed to be far-fetched...yet still not hard to believe. I heard some people found the things true in those books, including myself (for a second). But, yes, it's hard to translate the book onscreen. I've read the Da Vinci Code and I've got to say: It is a page turner. Every chapter ends with a cliffhanger, which is why I think people loved the book so much.

However, can you make a movie a page turner? Nope.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

I'd never read Da Vinci, but it was fairly obvious that it just didn't translate very well. Quite frankly, this one looks even less appealing, and the overall plot seems a bit more far-fetched.

I read both books, and while I liked them, I did not like "The DaVinci Code" that much. I will see "Angels & Demons," though, since the book was intriguing to read.But THIS movie on the Forum (when feedback is already on the positive side) is seriously messed up. And I'm still a little upset over the "Horton Hires a Ho" addition last year...

It IS the only major release next week, and The Da Vinci code WAS one of the most primal forms of mediocrity known to man. There are positive reviews, yes, but Wolverine was sitting at 100% for quite some time. I agree that we can't judge it just yet, but it's the only logical choice, between this and a bunch of indie movies.

It IS the only major release next week, and The Da Vinci code WAS one of the most primal forms of mediocrity known to man. There are positive reviews, yes, but Wolverine was sitting at 100% for quite some time. I agree that we can't judge it just yet, but it's the only logical choice, between this and a bunch of indie movies.

Well, shouldn't indie movies count, too? Wasn't "C Me Dance" an indie flick? Or are we only mocking movies that are backed by million dollar studio budgets? A bad movie is a bad movie, regardless if it was made by a studio or not.

Well, yes, of course, but they also aren't always quite as bad. At least indie movies have to try a little. Angels & Demons' viewers will come from fans of the book(s) or (try not to giggle) fans of The Da Vinci Code movie. Again, not to cast too much judgement on the quality of this film.

While indie films should be considered, this film was practically begging for the "honor" of being worst of the weak... After seeing how the Da Vinci Code was received. For the Head Razz to choose anything else would have been a huge surprise. Sort of like how a horror remake could be released alongside "Barney the Dinosaur vs The Martians" Produced by Michael Bay, and Written by Seltzerberg, and the Horror Remake will get the worst of the weak hands down...

Is what Tomsmo saying there even English? The words by themselves make sense, but strung together as they are... All I can say is... "Huh?"

To CriticalFrank: Sorry for the bad post, what I was trying to say was I don't see how this time around Tom Hanks won't be back on every talk show promoting this movie with long hair, like he did when Made The Da Vinci Code.

Well, that makes more sense... Couldn't quite make out the previous post, sorry about that.

Originally posted by tomsmo35

To CriticalFrank: Sorry for the bad post, what I was trying to say was I don't see how this time around Tom Hanks won't be back on every talk show promoting this movie with long hair, like he did when Made The Da Vinci Code.

Actually, the Bay/Seltzerberg movie could be the Worst of the Weak, and Horror Remake #48765894729 could be a Bonus Worst Movie of the Weak. Ah, number button mashing, it always gets the point across.

Originally posted by CriticalFrank

While indie films should be considered, this film was practically begging for the "honor" of being worst of the weak... After seeing how the Da Vinci Code was received. For the Head Razz to choose anything else would have been a huge surprise. Sort of like how a horror remake could be released alongside "Barney the Dinosaur vs The Martians" Produced by Michael Bay, and Written by Seltzerberg, and the Horror Remake will get the worst of the weak hands down...

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

Actually, the Bay/Seltzerberg movie could be the Worst of the Weak, and Horror Remake #48765894729 could be a Bonus Worst Movie of the Weak. Ah, number button mashing, it always gets the point across.

I don't know... I think that the Horror remake would be placed as worst of the weak... But that might just be a personal belief that some of the choices have been based on personal dislike, rather then the movie actually being the worst...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum